Opinions and The Big Bang Theory

[cindybubbles]

This thread reminded me of an exchange between Sheldon and his mother about opinions and fact. It went like this:

Sheldon: [ranting about teaching evolution to creationists]
Sheldon's Mom: Now you be careful, Sheldon! Everyone is entitled to their opinion!
Sheldon: Evolution isn't an opinion, it's an established fact!
Sheldon's Mom: And that is your opinion!

I'd like to see your opinion on that!

[siead_lietrathua]

well, technically sheldon is right. facts don't care about opinions. it's like how gravity is a fact. it doesn't matter your opinion on it, it's still just gonna do it's thing.
the theory of evolution is a body of facts about how the genetics in a population change over time to branch into diffrent species. it doesn't matter what people's opinions on it are, living things will still breed, mutate, and die, changing the populations.

[Rageaholic]

Can't one have an opinion that's also correct?

[siead_lietrathua]

oh yeah, you can have an opinion that's factually correct.
but if you're talking about one person with a fact-based-opinion VS one with a... for lack of a better way to put it... opinion-based-opinion, the fact person is the more correct of the two.

it's like comparing the opinions of a chef VS a toddler when it comes to food. Chef dude may have all the food-facts to back up his opinion, but the toddler is still gonna be all "MAC AND CHEEZE!" cuz he knows he likes it and won't listen to other ideas.

[TheHuckster]

oh yeah, you can have an opinion that's factually correct.
but if you're talking about one person with a fact-based-opinion VS one with a... for lack of a better way to put it... opinion-based-opinion, the fact person is the more correct of the two.

Some fact-based opinions are still subject to fallacy. One can have an opinion that we should ban ice cream because they've cited a correlation between ice cream sales and crime rates, not understanding that this statistic, while it might be factual, is a classic example of the post-hoc-erog-propter-hoc fallacy.

Other opinions might simply have to do with the person's point of view. If one told me the American Flag is blue, white, and grey, I'd tell them flat out they're wrong, and how could they think that... until you discover during the discussion they are color blind, and that truly is how they see the flag. The fact is there are red stripes on the flag, but it could also be factual that the person, because they can't see red, considers those stripes to be grey. At that point, should one still consider their opinion to be invalid?

[Kheldarson]

I think a better way to say it is that everybody's entitled to an opinion they can support. So in the American flag example, the color blind person can support their view because that's literally what they see. In cases of taste, well, that's what you like. In other matters, like gun control, for instance, you can have whatever opinion you want, as long as you can back it with facts. That's English 101 stuff.

[Sleepwalker]

because they can't see red, considers those stripes to be grey. At that point, should one still consider their opinion to be invalid?

...yes? It's incorrect. Perhaps for a 'better' reason than some others, but it's still an incorrect perception based off faulty sensory equipment. The light doesn't actually reflect differently based off who is viewing it.

[siead_lietrathua]

Other opinions might simply have to do with the person's point of view. If one told me the American Flag is blue, white, and grey, I'd tell them flat out they're wrong, and how could they think that... until you discover during the discussion they are color blind, and that truly is how they see the flag.

that's not really how colour blindness works though. and, to be fair, if some person did have an eye issue where they saw the colour red as a specific other colour like grey... they would probably still call that colour "red" because that's what everyone says when it's pointed to.
words for things are what we are taught. so if i'm colourblind, and someone points to the sky and says "blue", whatever i'm actually seeing i would still associate with "blue". hubs does this often, especially with blues and purples.

[TheHuckster]

that's not really how colour blindness works though. and, to be fair, if some person did have an eye issue where they saw the colour red as a specific other colour like grey... they would probably still call that colour "red" because that's what everyone says when it's pointed to.
words for things are what we are taught. so if i'm colourblind, and someone points to the sky and says "blue", whatever i'm actually seeing i would still associate with "blue". hubs does this often, especially with blues and purples.

That totally misses my point. I'm using a hypothetical allegory to a situation where a very different and opposing view is not done out of idiocy or stupidity, but merely because they simply don't have the sympathetic capability to come to that conclusion by themselves. A colorblind person could of course recite that the color of the flags are red white and blue, but that still doesn't mean they can understand or comprehend it just by looking at it.

In many ways, that's where a lot of religious debates end up. One side says they don't believe in a deity because they don't see one, while the other side says they do believe because a parent or guardian pointed in the sky and said God's up there and raised them to believe that. Both sides' arguments are flawed, but that doesn't make either opinion necessarily wrong or right.

[HYHYBT]

Shouldn't the difference between whether a statement is factual and whether it is true come in someplace? "The moon is made of cheese" is a statement of fact, despite being incorrect.

[siead_lietrathua]

Shouldn't the difference between whether a statement is factual and whether it is true come in someplace? "The moon is made of cheese" is a statement of fact, despite being incorrect.

i guess that's how you define fact. a fact is typically defined as something that is true. saying the moon is made of cheeze is NOT a fact, it's only a statement.

@the huckster: i guess i didn't make my own point clear. when dealing with things like colour, what the colour is VS the word we are taught for it is important.
think of it a different way. if some parent teaches their child that the colour yellow is actually called blue, and drills it into their head right up until they go to school. that child will be convinced bananas are blue, with no issue with their vision. they just have douchy parents.
in THAT case your flag analogy works. they are seeing red, but calling it grey because they don't know they were taught the wrong name for the colour. wheras a colourblind person will see something they think is grey but call it red because they've always been told that it is red, and be correct because the colour actually IS red. in their reality that is red, and correctly red, even if their eyes aren't reading it right.

[TheHuckster]

@the huckster: i guess i didn't make my own point clear. when dealing with things like colour, what the colour is VS the word we are taught for it is important.
think of it a different way. if some parent teaches their child that the colour yellow is actually called blue, and drills it into their head right up until they go to school. that child will be convinced bananas are blue, with no issue with their vision. they just have douchy parents.
in THAT case your flag analogy works. they are seeing red, but calling it grey because they don't know they were taught the wrong name for the colour. wheras a colourblind person will see something they think is grey but call it red because they've always been told that it is red, and be correct because the colour actually IS red. in their reality that is red, and correctly red, even if their eyes aren't reading it right.

Okay, that scenario is analogous to many debates and disagreements... I've also seen the other scenario that I described, where one is adamant that the flag is not red simply because they don't see red, and they refuse to listen to any person's claim otherwise.

I'm not saying there are actual colorblind people who do this. I'm just using the hypothetical scenario to illustrate how some debates turn out.

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm not saying there are actual colorblind people who do this. I'm just using the hypothetical scenario to illustrate how some debates turn out.

oh, i dig that. i just wanted to point out that it was kinda backwards. the colourblind person would still be calling it red, and be correct because in their worldview, whatever they are seeing IS red. they are using the correct word for the correct item, and might never even know they are colourblind until later on. that's one of the problems with language. lol.

[HYHYBT]

I guess that's how you define fact. a fact is typically defined as something that is true. saying the moon is made of cheeze is NOT a fact, it's only a statement.

All right. But it remains cheating to declare a true statement (say, "Europe is north of Africa") "fact" but a false statement of the same kind ("Africa is north of Europe") "opinion." Perhaps cheating isn't the best word for that either, but as an argument it's putting the cart before the horse, and more generally it poisons "opinion" for more legitimate uses where the issue is either inherently subjective or is one where there are insufficient facts available.

[siead_lietrathua]

huh? i'm confused.
see, both are statements, AND both are opinions. but when you have a case of one opinion based on facts, and another opinion based on, well, just because they say so? facts make a diffrence.

a person saying europe is north of africa can show you using a map and compass, and explain magnetic fields, can show you books on the subject, can actually take you on a trip between both places etc, so their opinion is based on fact.
if someone is asserting that africa is actually the one further north, despite their being no proof of it, then their opinion is based on what? baseless assertions?

there ARE people that use the term 'opinion' to deny facts about reality, so it drives me bonkers. people can have all the opinions they want but if they can't show their reasoning behind their opinion, then as far as we can know they're talkin outta their bums. opinions aren't magical things that can never be challenged. they are things that change over time as people learn.